Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. SARAH RICCARDI | 1995/10/19 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none It is reasonable to require law enforcement officers to have some reasonable suspicion that a citizen is predisposed to commit a crime before offering him an inducement to participate in a criminal venture. It is far different to suggest that law enforcement officers may not even approach a citizen to determine whether such a predisposition exists without first harboring a reasonable suspicion of the citizen's criminal inclination. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] WILLIAM LOFTWICH V. WILLIAM H. FAUVER | 1995/10/19 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none When the Code of Criminal Justice (N.J.S.A. 2C:1-1 to 104-9) was originally enacted, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5c provided that when a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for an offense committed while on parole, the custodial term and any period of reimprisonment the parole board may require are to run concurrently unless the court orders them to run consecutively. In 1984, this section was amended. L. 1983, c. 462, 1. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5c now provides that when a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for an offense committed while on parole, the custodial term and any period of reimprisonment the parole board may require as a result of parole revocation are to run consecutively unless the court orders these sentences to run concurrently. Ibid. At issue is whether the ex post facto prohibition is violated by application of the statutory amendment to an offender who was initially sentenced prior to 1984, but who committed crimes in violation of his parole after that date. We conclude that application of the 1984 amendment under these circumstances does not violate either the federal or State constitution. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JOHN ORSO V. LAURENCE GOLDBERG ET AL | 1995/10/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The fair report privilege afforded the news media to report defamatory statements of a public official is extended to full, fair and accurate reports of what was said concerning other public officials and conditions and situations existing in government which affect the public interest, not only where the statements are made in a public forum, but also where the remarks reported were made in a non-public interview reasonably related to the public disclosure or public controversy. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ROBERT PETROLIA v. ESTATE OF DR. HARVEY NOVA | 1995/10/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none VILLANUEVA, J.A.D. In this medical malpractice/informed consent case, a jury of five persons returned a unanimous verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's denial of his motions Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] VANDER STERRE BROS. CONSTRUCTION V. MILDRED KEATING | 1995/10/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Owner of an apartment constructed as an intended condominium unit is required to give a new tenant the formal notice specified in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.9 of the Anti-Eviction Act. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] WALTER ROBINSON V. CITY OF JERSEY CITY EL AL | 1995/10/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The predawn existence of a 355-foot icy patch on an otherwise dry state highway was a dangerous condition as a matter of law. It was a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used. N.J.S.A. 59:4-1a. Reasonable minds could not have differed on the dangerousness of the roadway at the time and place of the accident. Model Jury Charge No. 5.18 is flawed. Instead of defining dangerous condition of public property and listing it as an element of the cause of action, it incorporates all of the components of the cause of action into the definition of dangerous condition. The existence of a dangerous condition is only one of the essential elements of the cause of action against a public entity. It is not the cause of action itself. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] NJ CARPENTERS APPRENTICE TRAINING AND EDUCATION V. BOROUGH OF KENILWORTH, NEW JERSEY | 1995/10/16 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The instructional training program for journeymen carpenters conducted by the New Jersey Carpenters Apprentice Training and Education Fund qualifies as a school under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6.2 Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] KEVIN J. HAYDEN V. JULIA C. HAYDEN | 1995/10/16 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none In valuing a State Police pension for equitable distribution purposes, post-divorce pre-retirement cost-of-living increases should not be considered. Additionally, the valuation of the recipient's pension should not be reduced for the value of Social Security that would have been received in equivalent private employment, even though a State Police pension recipient is unable to receive Social Security. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] RIDGEWOOD ASSOC EL AL V. RIDGEWOOD BD OF EDUCATION | 1995/10/16 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Criteria for standing to challenge official conduct are applied as liberally in respect of the actions of boards of education as they are in respect of the actions of local governing bodies. An association representing teachers has standing to challenge the validity of a school board policy that limits the terms of employment of certain types of teachers, notwithstanding that none of its current members are directly affected by the policy. Individual petitioners who are taxpayers and teaching employees of the school district, but who are not directly affected by operation of the policy, also have standing. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF J.B | 1995/10/12 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Flight from a street corner in a high drug-trafficking area where police were investigating a citizen complaint that drug sales were then in progress distinguishes this case from State v. Tucker, 136 N.J. 158 (1994). The police were justified in pursuing the fleeing juvenile for investigatory purposes and were justified in seizing evidence in plain view. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] FAMILY FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK V. PHYLLIS DEVINCENTIS AND PHILIP DEVINCENTIS | 1995/10/11 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A vacant lot adjacent to an improved lot cannot be regarded as the principal dwelling of the owner/mortgagor for purposes of the applicability of Regulation Z implementing the Truth in Lending Law where both the vacant lot and the adjacent improved lot are the subjects of separate mortgages given to different mortgagees. A mortgagee bank does not have a duty to inquire as to the independent representation of an elderly mortgagor who appears at the closing with her adult son who is the co-maker of the mortgage note and an attorney apparently representing both. A plaintiff against whom no affirmative claim is made may not file a third-party complaint but rather an amended complaint joining additional parties. Moreover, in a mortgage foreclosure action, unless the claims against the additional parties affect the validity of the mortgage, they are not germane claims and, therefore, not subject to joinder under R. 4:64-5. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. KEVIN GRAHAM | 1995/10/06 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A parolee who not only leaves an approved residence but thereafter attempts to avoid parole supervision or apprehension, such as by residing at a location that is unknown to parole officials and failing to communicate with them, may be found guilty of the offense of absconding from parole. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] N.J. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. STANDARD TANK CLEANING CORP., et al., | 1995/09/29 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none To hold a corporate officer or director personally liable for a corporate violation of the Water Pollution Control Act, the DEP must show that that corporate official had actual responsibility for the condition resulting in the violation or was in a position to prevent the occurrence of the violation but failed to do so. The Water Pollution Control Act does not authorize an award of counsel fees to the DEP or the Attorney General's office. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] BAXT v. LILOIA | 1995/09/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none In an opinion dated March 13, 1995, this court previously held that an allegation that an attorney has breached the rules of professional conduct does not, by itself, create a cause of action in an adversary. Dreier, J., concurred in the result. Plaintiffs petitioned for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court which remanded the matter to this court pursuant to an order of July 5, 1995 to consider the claim of petitioners that the settlement of the underlying litigation expressly excluded plaintiffs' claims against the attorney defendants. On remand, this court adhered to the views expressed in our prior opinion. Dreier, J. dissented. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JETER v. STEVENSON AND MOODY | 1995/09/26 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none This is an automobile-negligence, personal injury action in which summary judgment was entered dismissing the complaint against the owner of the vehicle. The driver had died before being served, and his estate had not yet been substituted. The trial court concluded that an unsworn statement given by the decedent driver to the owner's insurer denying agency, permission and liability disposed of any reasonable dispute of fact regarding the driver's status as the owner's agent at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the statement, taken in undisclosed circumstances by undisclosed persons, could not, on its face and in the absence of a Rule 104 hearing, be deemed to satisfy the requirement of N.J.R.E. 804(b) that the statement of a decedent is admissible only if made by the decedent in good faith and in circumstances indicating that it is trustworthy. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JOHN F. HANRAHAN V. TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA | 1995/09/25 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Even in non-total disability cases N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 provides for continued treatment, whether or not labeled as palliative, as long as there is a showing by competent medical testimony that the treatment is reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the effects of the injury. Obviously there is a point beyond which reason dictates that the pain or disability experienced by the worker is insufficient to warrant the expense of active treatment. This is not the situation presented here. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] SSI MEDICAL SERVICES V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 1995/09/14 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Those who have valid claims against government ordinarily do not have a heavier burden in proving those claims than claimants against private parties. The DMAHS policy of requiring an enhanced burden of proof is disapproved. The Administrative Law Judge's factual findings are supported by the evidence and are upheld. (There is a dissenting opinion). Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] LORRAINE AINSWORTH V. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY | 1995/09/08 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The JUA is insolvent in the context of N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(2)(b). Therefore, an injured claimant may pursue uninsured motorist arbitration, and the UM insurer is subrogated to the claimant's rights against the JUA insured. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE HEIGHTS | 1995/07/10 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A lease from a public entity (in this case for non-exclusive use of a borough water tower as a cellular telephone communications facility) is subject to public bidding pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12-14, regardless of the provisions in N.J.S.A. 40A:12-24. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ROBERT J. DAMURJIAN VS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF COLTS NECK, ET AL | 1995/03/24 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Zoning ordinance which states: In the A-1, A-2, A-3 and AG zone[s], if the length of the principal building, projected on the front lot line, exceeds 90 feet, the required front, each side, and rear yard requirements shall be increased one foot for each foot the building projection exceeds 90 feet. is invalid for lack of definition of terms and objective, comprehensible method of calculating when the front setback of 90 feet must be augmented. Click here to get this docume |